Wednesday, 23 June 2010
Tuesday, 22 June 2010
Apparently not, as we see from the latest “study” – based on a petty, spiteful, Stasi-like blacklist produced by an obscure Canadian warmist – outrageously aggrandised by being published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. (Hat tip: Watts Up With That)
The study examined 1,372 scientists who had taken part in reviews of climate science or had put their name to statements regarding the key findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Scientists were grouped as “convinced” or “unconvinced”, and researchers examined how many times they had published papers on the climate.
The results showed that “unconvinced” scientists accounted for just three of the 100 most prolific authors on the subject, while papers by “convinced” scientists were more frequently cited in other research.
Well, no s***, Sherlock. And might this have anything to do, perchance, with the fact that – as the Climategate emails made abundantly clear – “unconvinced” scientists were deliberately shut out of the peer-review process by the “convinced” ones?
And how many scientists, with bachelor of science degrees or higher, have signed the Oregon Petition expressing doubts about Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW)? 31,000 plus.
And how many of the supposed 2500 climate scientists responsible for the IPCC “consensus” were actively involved in the sections to do with AGW? 53.
And how many scientists does it require to successfully falsify – ie prove wrong – a shabby, tired old theory like “Phlogiston”, or “Geocentrism”, or “Dangerous, unprecedented Man Made Global Warming?” One.
But guess how BBC Radio 4 reported the story this morning? Yep. “98 per cent of scientists support global warming theory.” (Hat tip: Nick Mabbs)
Then again, since when did we expect any kind of honesty or decency from the Warmists? Have a look, for example, at this great analysis by the National Post’s Lawrence Solomon on how Warmist propagandists are using their useful idiots in the MSM to exaggerate the level of public credulousness in AGW.
In a New York Times op-ed, which has been much crowed-over by warmists, a Stanford university professor called Krosnick argued that – contrary to the impression given by every other opinion poll in the last three years – the majority of the US public is fully behind measures to ruin their economy in the name of combatting climate change.
In our survey, which was financed by a grant to Stanford from the National Science Foundation, 1,000 randomly selected American adults were interviewed by phone between June 1 and Monday. When respondents were asked if they thought that the earth’s temperature probably had been heating up over the last 100 years, 74 percent answered affirmatively. And 75 percent of respondents said that human behavior was substantially responsible for any warming that has occurred.
For many issues, any such consensus about the existence of a problem quickly falls apart when the conversation turns to carrying out specific solutions that will be costly. But not so here.
Fully 86 percent of our respondents said they wanted the federal government to limit the amount of air pollution that businesses emit, and 76 percent favored government limiting business’s emissions of greenhouse gases in particular. Not a majority of 55 or 60 percent — but 76 percent.
Solomon explains here how Krosnick rigs his questions in order to “hide the decline” in public support for AGW lunacy.
The best question of all, Krosnick found, came from adding an assumption of pessimism:” What do you think will be the most serious problem facing the world in the future if nothing is done to stop it?” When put this way, 25% of the public responded with “Global warming/the environment.” Krosnick doesn’t tell us how many of that 25% choose global warming versus the myriad of other environmental issues, such as air pollution, food and drinking water safety, wildlife and species protection, farmland or woodlands protection.
Krosnick recommends that pollsters ask his 25% question, believing it will obtain a result more useful for policy makers. He also chastises the press for interviewing global warming sceptics along with global warming advocates, saying this creates in the public mind the impression that the science is not settled on global warming. 6% of articles on global warming last year included the views of sceptics, a percentage Krosnick evidently views as too high.
Krosnick gets different results than other pollsters do by asking questions that some might consider bizarre. For example, when people told him that they didn’t believe global warming was happening, he asked them to pretend they did by asking them, “Assuming that global warming is happening, do you think a rise in the world’s temperature would be caused mostly by things people do, mostly by natural causes, or about equally by things people do and by natural causes? He then lumped the pretend response from people who don’t believe in global warming with a similar question asked of people who weren’t pretending about their belief in global warming. The result of the merger of these two groups was: 30% blame global warming on humans, 25% blame global warming on natural causes, and 45% believe humans and natural causes are about equally to blame. In the New York Times oped, Krosnick summarized this finding by pretenders and believers as “75% of respondents said that human behaviour was substantially responsible for any warming that has occurred,” even though many of those 75% didn’t believe that global warming was happening at all.
So when dealing with the Warmist lobby, always remember these helpful tips: sup with a long spoon, know that they’re lying from the fact that their lips are moving, and when they leave, make sure to count your fingers and your silverware.
Monday, 21 June 2010
Thursday, 17 June 2010
13th Spitfire is now officially a bartender (I know, cool right?) at a local pub. He is very happy, so much so that he is going to continue with this ridiculous third-person narrative. The German coat-of-arms is just there for good measure.
Moreover, as the euro continues to dance on the brink of calamity, the people responsible for the deepening debacle have finally come up with a scheme that will save it once and for all. It’s a cunning plan that draws heavily on that old joke about a European heaven and hell. You’ll be familiar with it: in heaven the police are British, the cooks are French and the engineers are German; while in hell, the police are German, the cooks are British and it’s all organised by the Italians.
Wednesday, 16 June 2010
On a separate note, I grew up near a forest (well 'in' is probably a better word to use) so this is an issue that I hold dear. Hence, here is a paper on 'UK Trees and Forests' - probably not the most interesting read for city dwellers or perhaps it might be? (Try to ignore the Global Warming bollocks) Most of the UK used to be covered by forests but now it is only 11.8% (or 2.8 million hectares) which is still an improvement on the 5% which was the case during the First World War, for obvious reasons.
Tuesday, 15 June 2010
Monday, 14 June 2010
Sunday, 13 June 2010
Not cool. Regular readers will know that 13th is looking for a bartender job (CVs are going out tomorrow) and he will earn a measly £6 an hour at best, which is fine, I am there for the experience not the pay, but it is annoying that the fucking government will take the money I earn to collect glasses and give it to people who cannot even be bothered to lift a single fat fucking finger. Social security by all means but at a price of £120 billion? Come on... at least act like there is an incentive for people to give a shit about tomorrow's bread (which they currently don't since they know the nice pretty little government is going to give them a nice little cheque).
Saturday, 12 June 2010
I do not really care if England loses or wins, preferably they would stay in as long as possible because it will make life so much more miserable for the PC-Guardinistas and when they are unhappy I am super happy. Think about it really, there is always cause for celebration when socialists/communists are kept well well away from the helm of influence. They would love to label the country racist, all of it, and then stand upon their fake pedestal of self-righteousness. Only problem is that if you run up to a bloke now and call him racist he and the 20 other fellas with him will probably laugh at you and then pour their lager on your face.
Friday, 11 June 2010
Rugby - A thug's game, played by gentlemen.
And here is a very incisive piece from Old Holborn which I completely agree with.
With every government comes a new education system for our children as a few dozen Parliamentarians decide that their version of how to create a model citizen is better than the last version.
Millions of innocent lives are blighted forever as social experiments crash and burn, trillions of taxpayers money is thrown into the black hole of State Education with little or no regard for the outcome and Lordships awarded for the ones who do the least damage.
The latest Government is about to undertake another massive "experiment" with the lives of our children safe in the knowledge that they only have to pick up the glory if it works, not the blame if it fails. We'll have that to worry about if it does with unemployment, crime and poverty, not them. They'll be sitting in the Lords with a golden pension, bank account stuffed and CCTV on their expensive homes whilst we put bars on our own windows to protect ourselves from monosyllabic ferals with no hope of ever functioning as a rounded human being. No wonder Diane Abbott sent her kid to a private school.
So why do we always do it? Why do we always fiddle with the system? We KNOW what the successful system is, we used to have it here before we gave a few dozen politicians the chance to play God with our kids futures. Remember the following:
Put bluntly, the brightest kids went to Eton, smart kids went to Grammar and the mongs went to the Comp.
Brainboxes went to University, technically good kids went to tech and normal kids went to Poly. It worked.
Industry and commerce knew exactly where to find the people it needed and we flourished. We made things. Ships, cars, aircraft. We produced Scientists, Engineers, creatives and entrepreneurs. The rebels could study art and many of them did exceptionally well at it. We ruled the world in fashion, music, photography, film making and art.
The Germans have an excellent education system because Politicians can't get their hands on it. It is based on three types of school.
The Gymnasium is designed to prepare pupils for university education and finishes with the final examination, Abitur, after grade 12 or 13.
The Realschule has a broader range of emphasis for intermediate pupils and finishes with the final examination, Mittlere Reife, after grade 10
The Hauptschule prepares pupils for vocational education and finishes with the final examination, Hauptschulabschluss, after grade 9 or 10
See that? And what does Germany produce? Cars, ships, power stations, railways, aircraft, infrastructure. No fucking about in Germany. If you're thick, no WAY are you going to University to study to become a Nail Technician. You'll do an apprenticeship at 17 that will pay pretty much bugger all and then you'll get a job that will keep you and your family fed for life. We used to do the same here until the Socialists decided that was not the way to a progressive future.
And all because Germany has the courage to say to it's citizens
You're smart, you're average and you're thick. worry, we have something for all of youAnd most of all, they keep their education system away from the clutches of Politicians. Their kids are far too important for a few dozen idiots to ruin. It's time we learned to be honest with our population again. We OWE it to them.
Whilst we import German cars, kitchens and machines because they are so fucking excellent, I can see no better argument for a return to sanity in our education system. Who knows, in 30 years, the Germans might be buying our cars whilst they push bits of imaginary paper around a banking system for a living.